A three-member panel of judges today heard arguments in the city's appeal of an arbitrator's order reinstating a police officer fired after he pointed a loaded handgun at three teenagers in his neighborhood and struck two of them with the weapon while he was off-duty.

The long-running case arising from the April 2007 incident initially went to an arbitrator who ruled the dismissal of former Worcester patrolman David W. Rawlston was unwarranted.

The city then fired the police officer a second time because he did not have a required license to carry a weapon. A second arbitrator overturned that ruling as well.

Police Chief Gary J. Gemme had refused to issue a gun license to the man, citing allegations that he struck the youths with his weapon as well as alleged false statements on his license application.

A Suffolk Superior Court judge upheld the first arbitration decision, leading the city to lodge an appeal with the state Appeals Court.

The three judges hearing the case today zeroed in on the question of whether the appeal falls into the narrow exceptions that allow the court to overturn an arbitrator's decision, which includes an exception for matters of “public policy.” The panel took the appeal under advisement.

Tim D. Norris, a lawyer representing the city, argued that excessive force was used by the police officer in violation of the city's public policies as well as federal civil rights protections and said the officer's striking of the two youths with his gun “was not inadvertent.”

He said the finding of facts by the arbitrator also concluded that because the officer did not file a police report of the incident and was off-duty, his actions were not undertaken for a valid police purpose.

But Judge Janice M. Berry noted that because it was nighttime and based on the reports from the neighbor who said the youths were in the officer's driveway, the arbitrator found that displaying his gun was “justified.”

When she asked what public policy was broken, Mr. Norris said, “He violated the children's constitutional rights by converting or by creating an arrest out of the excessive force that he used.”

But Judge Berry said the arbitrator was called upon “to decide what happened and whether that action should result in termination.”

Judge Francis R. Fecteau told Mr. Norris that the exception to allow the court to overrule an arbitrator's decision when a public policy is at stake is a narrow one. “You are asking us to substitute our judgment that the arbitrator was incorrect,” Judge Fecteau said.

While the judges discussed other cases when a police arbitration was overturned based on the public policy exception, a lawyer for the police union representing Mr. Rawlston argued that in those cases much more egregious actions by the police officer were involved .

“It seems to me the problem is that the case law on arbitration is very difficult to overcome,” Judge Berry said to Mr. Norris. She said it might be different if the officer went outside his house “in a vacuum” and pointed his gun at three youths.

“This wasn't just three kids walking down the street,” she said.

“This is not that far from three kids walking down the street,” Mr. Norris responded.

Peter J. Perroni, a lawyer representing the New England Police Benevolent Association on behalf of Mr. Rawlston, told the judges they would have to ignore the findings of the arbitrator to rule in favor of the city.

“The only way you get there is by the expedience of ignoring the findings of the arbitrator,” Mr. Perroni said. He argued Mr. Rawlston's actions “were not egregious at all” and that “the arbitrator analyzed every single piece of this and made the decision. He said I reject the city's repeated indication to paint Officer Rawlston as somehow undeserving of a badge.”

The former patrolman has filed a lawsuit in Worcester Superior Court seeking $2 million in damages, alleging interference with his employment contract, violation of his civil rights, defamation and intentional infliction of emotional stress.

The Police Department initially fired Mr. Rawlston in 2008, saying he violated regulations by being untruthful and allegedly committed four counts of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. The Police Department also cited conduct unbecoming an officer, incompetence, careless use of a weapon and insubordination.

The first arbitrator in the case ruled in 2009 that the boys were not credible and that the city had not proved its allegations. He ordered Mr. Rawlston be reinstated with back pay.

Mr. Rawlston is now working for the state Department of Correction as a correction officer.

CDL A DELIVERY DRIVERS Home Every Night! Needed for our Worcester Depot! Drive local - No more spending valuable nights away from your family! As a Direct Store Delivery Representative YOU have the opportunity to make a difference with our customers! Provide excellent customer service; interact in a positive manner with our customers; deliver our products to local stores. Be home every night! Work for a Company that has been around for over 80 years! Minimum of 3 months driving experience with CDL A/B; GED or HS diploma required; Must be able to drive a standard transmission. EEO/Veteran/Disability Growing Strong Since1933!